* DXer’s analysis of the current state of the evidence … on the refusal of David Willman and others to confront evidence that disputes their claims … on the LA Times for allowing Willman to cover the case when it is clearly a conflict of interest … and on Frontline for failing to include the rabbit evidence which totally demolishes the FBI’s assertions about what Dr. Ivins was doing in his lab when investigators and prosecutors without basis claim he was making the attack anthrax

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 16, 2011

******

David Willman & Judith McClean & their books

******

DXer on David Willman (from a recent comment) …

David Willman, like Ed Montooth, in a Los Angeles Times article (for which he writes again) still relies on the events in July 2000 reported by counselor Judith McLean and the homicidal plot she described. (Ed Montooth mentioned it also when he was interviewed by Frontline. see transcript).

The investigators and psychatrists in 2008 could not have known that in 2009 Dr. Ivins’ first therapist, Judith M. McLean, who described the plot, would write of how she acquired her psychic abilities in her book available for sale onAmazon.com — from a being from another planet …

In addition to helping the FBI with Amerithrax, the psychic relied upon the government prosecutors and investigators helped with 911 by her astral travelling and retrieval of etheric body parts at Ground Zero … she thought she was being pursued by murderous astral entities.

Judith McLean annotated the notes of the psychiatrists. Gregory Saathoff never spoke to the counselor or the psychiatrists in his EBAP report. ( Dr. Saathoff released the report after the FBI closed the case but prosecutors and investigators had relied upon it in their decision-making; he incredibly spun his role as independent and did not make plain that he had guided the aggressive approach to Dr. Ivins from the start.)

Dr. Saathoff never corrected their report that they provided to federal district court judge Lamberth; separately, the DOJ has moved to exclude it in the Florida litigation on the grounds that the EBAP report was neither endorsed nor commissioned by the DOJ.

But Ed Montooth continues to rely on the July 2000 events.

And David Willman has never withdrawn his reliance on this central witness in his book.

Mr. Willman’s key witness (see his book and its index) got her instructions at night from an alien who had granted her psychic powers and controlled her through a device in her butt. I don’t know what would be more startling.

Equally startling is the fact that neither Mr. Willman, investigator Montooth, or prosecutor have ever mentioned the word “rabbits” or explained what the new documents show as to why Dr. Ivins was in the lab.

Mr. Willman writes “Other records showed that in the weeks preceding the mailings, he spent unusual late-night hours alone in his specially equipped Army lab.” without addressing the new documents showing his reason for being in the lab.

It is very wrong for the Los Angeles Times to rely on a book author promoting book sales to cover the issue — instead a different LA Times journalist should have written up the newly produced documents showing why Dr. Ivins was in the lab … and the notes and his night checks and the dozens of animals relate to each and every night that the prosecutors and investigators claimed he had no reason to be in the lab. Like the prosecutors and investigators, Mr. Willman seeks to shove 52 rabbits back into the hat.

On the science, which Mr. Willman addressed in an appendix to the epilogue in his book, he still frames the issue in terms of the FBI’s straw man argument of floatability rather than microencapsulation which instead is done to make spores more stable and resistant to being destroyed by sunlight and heat. See DARPA budget documents that have been linked showing that mass spec work that was testing the effect of a sonicator and corona plasma discharge on Ames spores from Ivins’ RMR 1029 flask was also testing spores that had been microencapsulated… to see if the mass spec could make a correct identification through the matrix.

Willman quotes Michaels saying: “But Michaels said that if tin or silicon had been intentionally added, it probably would have coated the exterior surfaces. He said he found trace levels of tin and silicon only inside the spores.” Michaels is speaking beyond his expertise and continues to prove an FBI sock puppet. Instead, in the microdroplet cell culture, the silica-based substance is put in the growth medium and would be incorporated through natural processes… just as Dr. Majidi, lead WMD scientist, says.

As for the other scientists, the lead genetics expert says she would acquit. The lead FBI and CIA internal genetics person says the genetics evidence would not have been admissible because it had not been validated. (And Keim agrees). Was Rachel really telling a suicidal and depressed guy (who had been calculatedly alienated from his friends) she was seeking the death penalty when she had not shared the documents concerning rabbits and she had been told the genetics expert was inadmissible? If she had given Paul Kemp the rabbit documents he would have realized that she was desperately trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear because of the pressure she felt back at the office to close the case.

Dr. Majidi has said that the forensics indicate that the silicon signature likely was due to being absorbed from the growth medium. (This would apply to the tin signature also). That points to the DARPA-funded patent that arrived in Ali-Al-Timimi’s in-box in Spring 2001. He shared a suite with leading Ames researchers Alibek and Bailey. After serving as the acting commander of USAMRIID, Bailey worked for years for DIA on threat assessment while still at USAMRIID in Building 1425. In 2001 and before, Southern Research Institute in Frederick did the B3 work with virulent Ames for the DARPA Center for Biodefense.

The Los Angeles Times ombudsman should address

why they do not have such stories addressed by a journalist

not promoting book sales on the very subject.

If the critique of the science, then his book should be filed in the circular file. That constitutes a huge conflict of interest.

If allowed to write on the subject he should have taken this opportunity to acknowledge the issue rather than rely on the first counselor and her story again by reference to homicidal plot. In his book, he does an admirable job in providing copious and detailed footnotes recounting what interviews he conducted Because of his detailed footnotes, you can thus see his missteps — to include reliance on the first counselor who he interviewed on a number of occasions. One is left to wonder why neither he nor Dr. Saathoff nor commentator Barbara Martin read the book available for $10 at amazon by the counselor explaining her acutely paranoid psychotic delusions that dominated her daily life and her time with Dr. Ivins. Dr. Saathoff chose to spend $38,000 in expenses on a psychiatric report without spending $10 on a book destroying his analysis. The first counselor says she was protected by a psychiatric diagnosis by her husband who was in military personnel. She quit the profession and left the state in 2001 due to her exhaustion from the psychic attacks by murderous psychic astral entities. (She would protect herself each night returning from Afghanistan in 2001, for example, by closing a vortex of light that the nasty astral entities couldn’t pass; in Afghanistan each night, she was doing psychic DNA reconstruction).
When I mentioned Mr. Willman’s failure to address the issue to a reporter, he said well reporters tend to dig in and defend a position they staked out. Huh? Instead, reporters are supposed to do things like press for new documents and new information and then write them up. Not even Frontline has written up the documents about Dr. Ivins work with rabbits produced in the last 2 months by USAMRIID. And instead Frontline merely panned over lab notes produced in May 2011. The rabbit documents, without more, demolish the FBI’s science case that was premised on unexplained time in the lab. Patricia Fellows and Anthony Bassett should be interviewed on those same documents.

Not even Frontline has written up the documents about Dr. Ivins work with rabbits produced in the last 2 months by USAMRIID. And instead Frontline merely panned over lab notes produced in May 2011.

16 Responses to “* DXer’s analysis of the current state of the evidence … on the refusal of David Willman and others to confront evidence that disputes their claims … on the LA Times for allowing Willman to cover the case when it is clearly a conflict of interest … and on Frontline for failing to include the rabbit evidence which totally demolishes the FBI’s assertions about what Dr. Ivins was doing in his lab when investigators and prosecutors without basis claim he was making the attack anthrax”

Regarding the use of Mr. Willman to channel the views of supporters of an “ivins Theory”, former lead Amerithrax investigator Lambert writes me today:

“Ross, you are quite right about the access Willman was given. It was access in return for publishing the FBI’s construct of what happened. Certainly there was quid pro quo. As for the documents you request, unfortunately I don’t have any of them. When you retire from the FBI you are allowed to walk out the door with only your personal effects – no FBI documents or communications. I do agree with you about the patent unfairness of the government making material disclosures to one hand picked member of the press.”

DXersaid

Is the failure of the DOJ prosecutors Kenneth Kohl and Rachel Lieber to produce the documents and information about the rabbits mitigated — or is it aggravated — by their use of David Willman as a proxy to spin the narrative of Dr. Ivins that they wanted told.

DXersaid

The Anthrax Investigation: The View From the F.B.I.
Published: October 27, 2011

To the Editor:

I take issue with several points in your Oct. 18 editorial “Who Mailed the Anthrax Letters?”

First, the National Academy of Sciences report concluded that the anthrax in the mailings was consistent with the anthrax produced in Dr. Bruce Ivins’s suite. The report stated, at the same time, that it was not possible to reach a definitive conclusion about the origins of the samples based on science alone. But investigators and prosecutors have long maintained that while science played a significant role, it was the totality of the investigative process that ultimately determined the outcome of the anthrax case.

Further, scientists directly involved in the lengthy investigation into the anthrax mailings — both from within the F.B.I. and outside experts — disagree with the notion that the chemicals in the mailed anthrax suggest more sophisticated manufacturing.

Second, it was directly relevant that Dr. Ivins worked long hours alone during the time of the mailings in the laboratory’s “hot suites” where the anthrax that was genetically linked to the attack spores was produced and handled. He had not done that before the mailings, nor did he ever do it again.

Dr. Ivins submitted an intentionally misleading sample in April 2002 that was free of genetic markers. Samples of his anthrax spores that contained the genetic markers were either submitted before he realized the markers might trap him or were seized later by the F.B.I., not made available by Dr. Ivins.

We strongly disagree with recent television reporting on this issue cited in the editorial.

DXersaid

On the day that some fantasized that Dr. Ivins was finalizing preparation of powdered anthrax, he instead was reporting on a grueling past 3 days when dozens of rabbits had died in his Biolevel 3 laboratory. Those who urge he is the perpetrator are very wrong not to acknowledge that the very days that they had speculated that he was making a dried powdered anthrax in biolevel 3, the documentary evidence shows that he was monitoring the deaths of dozens of rabbits in that same biolevel 3 space. GAO needs to find out who knew what when about the rabbit study.

Note: We originally studied the effect of formaldehyde on rPA vaccine potency/stability in guinea pigs. The cumulative data indicated that stability/potency was enhanced by the presence of formaldehyde.
– Bruce

DXersaid

In a December 19, 2001 email that I long ago first linked, Dr. Ivins explained to an outside scientist inquiring about procedure, that whenever they do a challenge with virulent anthrax, it is ALWAYS done at biolevel 3 (or for aerosol challenges) BL-4. When it is aerosol it needs to be done in Building 1412 and when it is subcutaneous, it can be done in Building 1425.

I also have uploaded and frequently cited and linked the 302 interview statement explaining that it is a one man job that takes a couple of hours.

DXersaid

I’ve often posted the documents relating to the rabbit study and so Mr. Willman’s failure to address the fact that Dr. Ivins’ time on those dates in the lab is explained by the rabbit study is very wrong. FBI Agent Montooth seems genuinely confused and uninformed on the subject. See his Frontline transcript. Neither he nor AUSA Rachel Lieber evidence any awareness of the rabbit study at all. The word rabbit never passes their lips. While the documents show that 52 rabbits were in the B3 being subcutaneously challenged, they imagine, without basis, that Dr. Ivins with many hundreds of plates growing anthrax. The investigators and prosecutors appear to have no mastery of the documents whatsoever — and Rachel provides no citations in her investigative summary. Both seem to have confused Patricia Fellow’s characterization of the mouse study for what the documents show about both the mice and rabbit studies. The 302 interview statement explains that it was a one man job that would take a couple of hours, and involve the autoclaving of dead animals by the last person in the lab. Frontline’s work on hours has been totally inadequate because they wrote up the results of a FOIA they had submitted on hours generally without writing up what the documents say about the formaldehyde study involving the rabbits (as well as the passive mouse study). Sometimes what you don’t address is even more important than what you do address.

Five years ago we made rPA vaccine/Alhydrogel with and without formaldehyde added. We tested the vaccines after various periods of time of storage and noted (in guinea pigs) that the presence of formaldehyde appeared to boost potency of the vaccine. It was unknown whether the boost in potency was due to stabilization of the protein, or to an adjuvant effect. (Formaldehyde itself causes local inflammation which would draw APCs and other cell types to the site.) The vaccine is now 5 years old since it was formulated, and we wished to see (in the rabbit model) if there is any difference in potency between the 2 vaccines. (The rabbit model is preferred over the guinea pig model in tests of anthrax vaccine efficacy.)

Four rabbits (2 of each gender) will be controls receiving Alhydrogel and PBS.
Rabbits will be bled at weeks 2 and 4 for anti-PA antibody titers. They will be challenged subcutaneously with virulent anthrax spores 6 weeks after immunization and monitored for survival.

This experiment will demonstrate whether the presence of formaldehyde in an rPA/Alhydrogel vaccine increases or preserves potency.
– Bruce

I understand that you may have some cold rabbit space beginning Feb 02, when xxxx abbits go hot. If so, we would like to order 52 rabbits to be housed in the cold for 6 weeks(6an)d
then moved to hot space for 4 weeks. Can you tell me when I can bring the rabbits in, so I can order them as soon as possible? Thank you.
– Bruce Ivins

DXersaid

A November 29, 2001 email looking for the availability of hot space for a related challenge of 52 rabbits for the next-generation anthrax vaccine, explained that it could be done in Building 1425 (rather than 1412 where aerosol challenges were done) because it involved a parenteral or subcutaneous challenge.

The email stated: “The experiments he has planned are for the next-generation anthrax vaccine effort, which as you know, has an extremely high priority in the Institute. What is the possibility of getting hot space in 1425. (these are parenteral challenge experiments, so they don’t have to be done in 1412)? Thanks.”

DXersaid

Not only was the blogger Ed confused and not realizing that the mice were separate from the rabbits, and that Dr. Ivins’ check was the night check and not the afternoon check, but the rabbits in early October were Dr. Ivins’ rabbits — as were the ones that were involved in the experiment a few months later.

Is there a chance we can get some hot side space for Dr. Ivins’ animals soon?
Thanks.

At this point I am unsure. xxxxxxx has 70 rabbits scheduled to be housed till march 02 on the hot side. This may not be in total but in part by then. There are also 28 rabbits for
coming in tomorrow to be housed on the outside initially. there final movememt time to the xxx hotside is unclear at present. I will keep you informed.

DXersaid

There is one internet poster, Ed, who did not realize that the experiment involving a challenge to rabbits and assessment whether formaldehyde was needed in the vaccine was entirely separate from the passive mouse study. He even thought that the time of death reported in the notebook (which is marked on a card on a page and then from that entered into the notebook) represented the time Dr. Ivins was at the lab.

DXersaid

The wonderful FOIA person at USAMRIID can provide a copy of this rabbit protocol that is attached to the February 20, 2002 email.

<>

From: To: Subject: Date:
Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
RE: Rabbit rPA isoform study Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:00:47 AM
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Two doses will save rPA. We want to partially protect the animals so that we can see if there is a difference in protective immunogenicity between the isoforms. If we used 1 dose, we’d have to use about 50 micrograms per rabbit. Using 2 doses, we need less than 1 microgram per rabbit. The subcu challenge enables us to do more rabbits at one time. The question we ask when deciding whether to use sc or aerosol challenge in rabbits is this: Can we get the necessary information with a subcu challenge? If so, we do it, because 1) it uses far fewer spores; 2) it requires far fewer people and time to do it; 3) it is more accurate with respect to challenge dose. Of course, when testing what we intend to be the final rPA vaccine, we want to strongly consider an aerosol challenge. However, this experiment, with its subcu challenge, will answer the question as to whether or not there is any protective immunogenicity difference between isoforms.
– Bruce

DXersaid

These are the documents that internet poster Ed and journalist/book author promoting sales David Willman have not reviewed thus explaining their confusion. The Frontline/McClatchy/ and ProPublica have evidenced no indication that they have reviewed them either. They should review them and have a qualified scientist walk them through them.

In particular, until Ed has the relevant documents and someone qualified to address them, he should avoid adding to the confusion he adds daily. It’s as if he goes in to the biocontainment area — spins around repeatedly and then throws up on his shoes.

DXersaid

My source on the “Microdroplet Cell Culture” method — coinvented by the DARPA researchers who shared a suite with Ali Al-TImimi who was coordinating with Anwar Awlaki — being a microencapsulation patent is John Kiel, head of the Air Force lab. Dr. Kiel did controlled experiments on the “silicon signature”. His lab would make microencapsulated product to test USG’s ability to destroy it.

He reported to me in extensive email correspondence that a silianizing solution in the slurry led to the same signal shown in the mailed anthrax.

Note that Mr. Willman nowhere cites the head of the NAS panel, a chemical engineer who is President of Lehigh University, who says the silicon-tin needs to be understood.

Nor does he cite the FBI’s experts Weber and Velsko. Dr. Kiel could explain to the Lawrence Livermore experts that the uptake of iron makes the anthrax more lethal in the lungs.

If Mr. Willman is not impressed with the relevance of SJ’s expertise in doing the work he did for DARPA — and a DARPA whistleblower back in 2001 was first to sound the alarm — then he perhaps should get the results of the research done by the Air Force lab on this precise issue that shows the effect of a silanizing solution in the slurry. Dr. Kiel says Dr. Beecher of the FBI had closed his mind on such issues and did not take into account the FBI’s thinking.

Mr. Willman should have interviewed Battelle’s DeBell from Northern Virginia. He should have interviewed the Southern Research Institute scientists doing the work with Ames for DARPA. He should have interviewed John Ezzell’s former assistant Joany Jackman who worked with the special facilities they constructed at USAMRIID.

Indeed, the FBI’s conclusion was to dismiss the silicon signature and shrug its shoulders.

The FBI’s scientist JB controlling the FBI’s release of documents and guiding its conclusions about the irrelevance of the silicon signature was the collection scientist for ATCC, which was at GMU where the Ames researchers were. ATCC co-sponsored Al-TImimi’s research and a whistleblower says he had unfettered access to the collection there, including its secret patent repository. JB permitted Ali Al-Timimi’s access to the largest microbiological inventory in the world. Imagine the liability.

The failure in intelligence analysis represented by Amerithrax dates back to before 2001.

After 2001, it was all CYA.

The problem is that our loved ones require that we encourage GAO to focus on conflicts of interest analysis and enforce the principles that should have applied. LA Times should do the same. He can be interviewed by a fellow journalist as to all his personal views on the matter explained in his book and the reporter can take them into account.

Having the scientist who made a dried powder out of RMR 1029..er… to collect the samples… was not the best person for the job despite his personal integrity. David Wilson should have realized this. The FBI’s analysis would never withstand the GAO obtaining of the emails between John Ezzell, James Burans and David Wilson.

The fellow who was lead DOJ prosecutor, Daniel Seikaly, leaked the Hatfill stories — he has pled the Fifth Amendment. He came over from the CIA in late September to take the job. He was born in Haifa in 1948. His daughter represented Ali Al-Timimi pro bono.

Is investigative reporting dead in this country? Is enforcement of conflict of interest principles dead?

DXersaid

“Their experience would prove the federal government’s early assurances about anthrax were wrong in key and deadly ways.

A decade later, the lessons learned here have helped shape how the nation responds to disasters, how information about risk is conveyed to the public and how we prepare for potential future bioterrorism attacks. The crisis led to an investment of billions of dollars in biodefense research in New Jersey and elsewhere.”

Comment:

This massive expenditure on biodefense is an utter travesty when you focus on the documents being withheld by the DOJ such as the lab notebook relating to the Covance study in September and October 2001 that brought Dr. Ivins to Denver, PA on September 18, 2001.

If I were President, biodefense spending would be shut down until DOJ produced the non-exempt documents under FOIA.

It’s not just that the government is very bad at protecting its citizens, it is that they at the same time have driven the country to bankruptcy.

For example, if there were an investigative reporting, Admiral Crowe would never have been allowed to defend his interest in Bioport on the grounds that it was just a gift and he didn’t have to do anything.

The story about the FBI’s anthrax expert making dried powder should have been broken by 2002.

Instead, we get Mr. Willman who just is presenting the Ivins’ sorority theory by the FBI relying on the lady granted her powers by an alien who implanted a chip in her butt.

It would have cost NOTHING for Rachel and Ed Montooth to have disclosed the rabbit documents in the investigative summary which would have made the closing of the case untenable.

Any suggestion that Rachel did not know about the rabbit study documents is provably untrue.